Illinois required that all trucks operating on its highways be equipped with a type “N” mudguard. The United States Supreme Court held the Illinois statute unconstitutional. Ohio has a statute which requires all trucks operating on its highways to be equipped with a type “X” mudguard. All other states permit either a type “N” or “X” mudguard. Congress has passed no legislation on the subject.
If Congress should pass legislation requiring that all trucks be equipped exclusively with type “X” mudguards, and that legislation is challenged, the most likely result would be:
A. The act would be upheld under the power to regulate commerce between the states.
B. The act would be upheld pursuant to the Commerce Clause only if the court finds that the present scheme of regulation is a substantial burden on commerce.
C. The act would be held unconstitutional, because most states authorize type “N” mudguards.
D. The act would be held unconstitutional, because Congress cannot interfere with the states’ police power right to regulate the roads that belong to the states.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer A is correct. Congress can clearly regulate the type of mudguards required on trucks under the Commerce Clause because this issue could clearly affect interstate commerce.
Answer B is incorrect. Because Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, the Court need not find that state regulation of the issue is a substantial burden on commerce. Congress can regulate matters related to interstate commerce even if state regulations are not inconsistent and do not burden interstate commerce.
Answer C is incorrect. Because Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, the Court must defer to Congress when it enacts legislation even if that legislation substantially burdens commerce and even if that legislation is at odds with existing state statutes.
Answer D is incorrect. In general, states are free to regulate roads within their boundaries, but not when Congress regulates a matter which affects interstate commerce. Then, because Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, the Court must defer to Congress’ commerce power because that authority supersedes the states’ Tenth Amendment authority.
A. Congressional power has the power to regulate interstate commerce.
A – clearly
There is no requirement that the Federal goverment find state regulations burden interstate commerce before enacting Federal commerce laws. The “burden on commerce” test is a basis for Constitutionally striking down state laws.
B
– the only if…makes it true….the act is upheld as constitutional only if (once) when states are violating and putting a burden on interstate commerce….
answer A. 2. When Congress regulates interstate commerce, conflicting state laws are superseded and even non-conflicting state/local laws may be preempted.
3. Congress may permit / prohibit state regulations that would violate / be upheld under the Commerce Clause (but not civil liberties)
4. if the activity is non-commercial there must be stronger and more significant link between the activity and interstate commerce, the constitutionality will depend on the link
5. If it is commercial, the court will usually find that the activity will have an affect on interstate commerce
A. I like B but dont like the ONLY if they find it a substantial burden. Im gonna stick with A
Followup: The present scheme of regulation IS a substantial burden on commerce because trucks would have to change mudflaps upon going into Illinois, but I’m not sure I like the idea of “only if” found in B. I believe Congress is free to regulate interstate commerce as it sees fit.
D is wrong because Congress can interfere with the states’ police power to regulate the roads that belong with states IF it is a substantial burden on interstate commerce.
I like A. Congress can regulate instrumentalities (e.g. trucks) of interstate commerce. It has the power to regulate any activity, whether carried on in one state or many, which has any appreciable effect on interstate commerce.
I believe the best answer is A. I think B is incorrect, b/c of the “only if” clause.
I think it’s B. There was a case about this in con law. It’s unconstitutional because it hinders interstate commerce…I mean really, forcing the drivers to stop and change their mud flaps at every state?
C – Under a uniform commercial standard, courts will strike down legislation that does not impinge on police power.
I think A is the right answer because Congress can regulate channels, instrumentalities, or activities with a substantial impact on commerce. Trucks are an instrumentality of commerce. My only thought to the contrary was that it wouldn’t be ok to “take title” of IL and force them to change their scheme, however, D is wrong because it has nothing to do with the police power, and C is wrong because who cares about what the other states are doing?
A is the best answer. In the fact situation, the regulations on the mudguards are made by states, which was considered unconstitutional. If Congress passes legislation that requires all trucks to be equipped with a certain type of mudguard, this would be constitutional because congress has the power to regulate commerce between states.